Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Priceless! Isn't that a case of pot calling kettle names?It's really painful to read a comment like this - I don't mean to be disrespectful to you personally, but I really wish you wouldn't post on something when you don't really know your talking about.
And I'm sorry to be blunt, but what you have said is completely full of errors.
You are correct.The traditional Christian,which I am in most ways denies the existence of the 'soul' before birth,and that is the biggest error they make....There was a reason for Christ wishing that we should ignore 'reincarnation' these last 2,000 years, because He wanted us to concentrate on saving our souls,and building up the energy [love and belief in Him] to bring up souls from the lower world 'hell' to be judged FINALLY. God has entered the world before ,but we did not listen and made little progress .It was neccessary to get it right because,this is the Last Age [pisces] before the end of the Great Year,and the time for a new beginning. However atheists,and those who mock God will find that there is no beginning for them.You could well be one of those souls doomed to Hell again. God showed me His laws : I was not interested in such things as astrology,being well educated ,and from a family of scientific sceptics.And my argument is that we are not born with a need for God and it is not a basic and universal need. If we really had a need for a god then by your definition we would stop functioning and die without one. So how, then, do I continue to live when there is no god in my life? Please give a logical answer to that, not a trite one "God is in your life but you fail to see it".
When people say they need a god. They tend to mean meaning 3.
I have no need for a god, personally. In all meanings of the word.
Actually ALL of Maslow's needs have consequences if not met
As you said in a previous post "Not true - you clearly aren't familiar with the theory." That was Frankl.And just to put your comment into context, Maslow said that "oneness with God" is a higher (self actualization) need...
You are obviously blissfully unaware that the first 4 levels of needs (up to and including esteem) are known as the deficiency needs. Funny that.The higher needs (esteem and self actualization) can not, and in a lot of cases are not, reached by people by virtue of the fact that lower level needs haven't been met. Esteem needs have lower and higher levels, with deprivation of higher esteem needs leading to personality and psychological disorders as mentioned in one of my earlier posts.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to you personally, but I really wish you wouldn't post on something when you don't really know your talking about.
Actually according to Maslow it's because they don't become needs until you have fulfilled the others. Note that you've just argued that the need for god is part of this self-actualisation level - which is only attained by 1% of people. All of that tends to indicate that the need for god is not actually universal so doesn't meet your criteriaThere are none - simply because they are higher needs, NOT basic needs.
Why would I when you're doing such a good job of destroying your own argument?Sounds to me like you should back down on your argument regarding a need for God?
As you said in a previous post "Not true - you clearly aren't familiar with the theory." That was Frankl.
You are obviously blissfully unaware that the first 4 levels of needs (up to and including esteem) are known as the deficiency needs. Funny that.
Actually according to Maslow it's because they don't become needs until you have fulfilled the others. Note that you've just argued that the need for god is part of this self-actualisation level - which is only attained by 1% of people. All of that tends to indicate that the need for god is not actually universal so doesn't meet your criteria. You may want to stop digging now.
Why would I when you're doing such a good job of destroying your own argument?
In fact, my argument is based on experimental evidence from a number of highly credible sources (for example, University of Oxford centre for Anthropology and Mind, Faraday Institute for research)
Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.
Children also naturally pick their nose, pee in their pants and eat dirt. Doesn't mean that these actions are universal needs, just that our brains are wired to do strange things at times. Evolution doesn't produce perfect, it gives "works good enough".
Interesting that you don't think eating and going to the toilet are universal needs ?
Are you still stuck with this misconception? Let's put it really simply: there are things we do, and things we have to do to survive. Things we do include believing in God, picking our nose, and so on. Things we have to do to survive include eating and drinking. The latter category encompasses universal needs, the former category doesn't.
You make your declaration about this and that doesn't constitute a universal need - but says who?
An article on your researcher. Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph. Here are some examples of his evidence for a belief in god:Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.
If you want to know more about research on childhood theism, then the following link contains a talk on the subject:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php?ItemID=Item_Multimedia_276&Mode=Add
From page 1 "What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved..."The following article looks at the evolution of religion and a belief in God, and asks the question whether we are actually hard-wired to believe in God?
Evolution and Religion - Darwins God - Robin Marantz Henig - New York Times
And yet the evidence you quote indicates that it isn't universal. So what is your disagreement based on?You've told me that believing in God is in a category that doesn't constitute a universal need - I disagree.
But the something does not back what you say!You say that's a misconception - but given that any point I make is actually based on something, and that I say what that something actually is shows that it's not a misconception.
So we'll call it your lack of understanding instead. It's still wrong.You can see from any of my points that I normally refer to something other than my own opinion.
You already set the definition as "universal' meaning applicable to every person. It's your evidence that is failing, not the definitionAt the moment your comment means nothing other than expressing your opinion...so why don't you set the definitions for the discussion?
Interesting that you don't think eating and going to the toilet are universal needs ?
So you're telling me that peeing in your pants in a universal need? The fact that you need to pretend that this is really something every adult needs to do to survive shows me how far you have to go to try and cling to your beliefs about the matter.
Are you accusing me of being a liar or not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?